Redefining Attribution From Patient to Health System-How the Notion of "Mistrust" Places Blame on Black Patients

Increasing Clinical Trial Participation of Black Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

Despite racial disparities in breast cancer mortality, Black women remain underrepresented in clinical trials. In this mixed methods research, 48 Black women were engaged via focus group discussions and in-depth interviews to better understand the lived experience of women with breast cancer. The results of this qualitative study informed the development of a subsequent online survey to identify barriers, motivators, and other factors that influence decision-making by Black women diagnosed with breast cancer when considering clinical trial participation. Among the 257 Black survey participants, most (95%) were aware of clinical trials; of those, most viewed them as lifesaving (81%) and/or benefiting others (90%). Negative perceptions such as serious side effects (58%), not receiving real treatment (52%), or risk of potential harm (62%) were indicated. Barriers included financial expenses (49%), concerns that their condition could be made worse (29%), that they would receive a placebo (28%), or that treatment was unapproved (28%). Participants were more likely than their health care providers (HCPs) to initiate discussions of clinical trials (53% versus 33%), and 29% of participants indicated a need for more information about risks and benefits, even after having those conversations. The most trustworthy sources of information on clinical trials were HCPs (66%) and breast cancer support groups (64%). These results suggest that trusted communities are key for providing education on clinical trials. However, there is also a need for HCPs to proactively discuss clinical trials with patients to ensure that they are adequately informed about all aspects of participation.

Applying Systems Thinking to Inform Decentralized Clinical Trial Planning and Deployment

Recently, there has been a growing interest in understanding how decentralized clinical trial (DCT) solutions can mitigate existing challenges in clinical development, particularly participant burden and access, and the collection, management, and quality of clinical data. This paper examines DCT deployments, emphasizing how they are integrated and how they may impact clinical trial oversight, management, and execution. We propose a conceptual framework that employs systems thinking to evaluate the impact on key stakeholders through a reiterative assessment of pain points. We conclude that decentralized solutions should be customized to meet patient needs and preferences and the unique requirements of each clinical trial. We discuss how DCT elements introduce new demands and pressures within the existing system and reflect on enablers that can overcome DCT implementation challenges. As stakeholders look for ways to make clinical research more relevant and accessible to a larger and more diverse patient population, further robust and granular research is needed to quantify the impact of DCTs empirically.

Diversity of Participation in Clinical Trials and Influencing Factors: Findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2020

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial diversity is critical to advance health and health equity. Research addressing the discrepancy between goals of achieving clinical trial diversity and realities of study enrollment remains underdeveloped.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the association between race/ethnicity and clinical trial invitation, participation, knowledge, and sources of influence on clinical trial participation.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional, observational study using nationally representative data from 3689 US adults (≥ 18 years of age) who responded to the Health Information National Trends Survey fielded from February 24 to June 15, 2020.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcomes included clinical trial invitation, participation, knowledge, and sources of influence on participation. The independent variable of interest is self-reported race/ethnicity.

KEY RESULTS

Respondents identifying as non-Hispanic Black (relative to non-Hispanic White) had higher odds of being invited into a clinical trial (adjusted odds ratio: 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 3.7), but no differences in odds of participation were observed by race/ethnicity. Respondents from all races/ethnicities reported that personal healthcare providers were the most trusted source of clinical trial information. Hispanic (marginal effect (ME): - 0.09; 95% CI: - 0.16, - 0.03), non-Hispanic Black (ME: - 0.11; 95% CI: - 0.18, - 0.04), and non-Hispanic other (ME: - 0.11; 95% CI: - 0.19, - 0.02) respondents had lower odds than non-Hispanic White respondents of saying they would be influenced "a lot" by their doctor encouraging participation. Non-Hispanic Black respondents had significantly lower odds (relative to non-Hispanic White) of indicating family encouragement would influence their clinical trial participation decision "a lot" (ME: - 0.09; 95%: CI: - 0.14, - 0.03).

CONCLUSION

While personal healthcare providers were trusted sources of information, racial/ethnic minority populations noted lower odds of clinical trial participation influence from providers and family. Thus, it is imperative for the healthcare, government, and industry organizations to build trust in medicine and science.

Making Pain Research More Inclusive: Why and How

Current knowledge about mechanisms and interventions for pain has largely been derived from samples that are healthier, wealthier, younger, and more likely to be White than the general population. Failure to conduct inclusive pain research not only restricts generalizability and application of findings, but also hampers the discovery of mechanisms and the development of measures and interventions that are valid across population subgroups. Most of all, inclusive practices are critical to ensure that underrepresented groups derive equitable benefit from pain research. Here, we provide guidance for the pain research community on how to adopt inclusive research practices. We define "inclusion" to encompass a range of identities and characteristics, including racialized group/ethnicity, disability status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. We first describe principles relevant to promoting inclusion in pain research, including attention to: 1) stakeholder engagement; 2) structural factors underlying inequities; 3) the limitations of "disparity" research; 4) intersectionality; and 5) universal design. Next, we provide checklists with practical strategies for making studies more inclusive at each stage of the research process. We conclude by calling for system-level changes to ensure that the future of pain research is socially just, scientifically productive, and responsive to the needs of all people. PERSPECTIVE: This paper offers guidance on promoting inclusion of underrepresented groups in pain research. We describe principles relevant to conducting more inclusive research; eg, attention to stakeholder engagement, structural factors, and universal design. We provide checklists with practical strategies for inclusion at each stage of the research process.

The Role of Medical Mistrust in Concerns about Tumor Genomic Profiling among Black and African American Cancer Patients

Tumor genomic profiling (TGP) is used in oncology practice to optimize cancer treatment and improve survival rates. However, TGP is underutilized among Black and African American (AA) patients, creating potential disparities in cancer treatment outcomes. Cost, accuracy, and privacy are barriers to genetic testing, but medical mistrust (MM) may also influence how Black and AA cancer patients perceive TGP. From December 2019 to February 2020, 112 Black and AA adults from two outpatient oncology sites in Philadelphia, PA without a known history of having TGP testing conducted completed a cross-sectional survey. Items queried included sociodemographic characteristics, clinical factors, patient-oncologist relationship quality, medical mistrust, and concerns about TGP. A k-means cluster analysis revealed two distinct psychographic clusters: high (MM-H) versus low (MM-L) medical mistrust. Clusters were not associated with any sociodemographic or clinical factors, except for age (MM-H patients older than MM-L patients, p = 0.006). Eleven TGP concerns were assessed; MM-H patients expressed greater concerns than MM-L patients, including distrust of the government, insurance carriers, and pharmaceutical companies. TGP concerns varied significantly based on level of medical mistrust, irrespective of sociodemographic characteristics. Targeted communications addressing TGP concerns may mitigate disparities in TGP uptake among those with medical mistrust.